Open Eyes 118 06-26-15 Irish Slavery, Racist Nonsense, False Flags and MORE

The threat to human health from climate change is so great that it could undermine the last 50 years of gains in development and global health, experts warned on Tuesday.

 Almost 200 countries have set a 2 degrees C global average temperature rise above pre-industrial times as a ceiling to limit climate change, but scientists say the current trajectory could lead to around a 4 degrees C rise in average temperatures, risking droughts, floods, storms and rising sea levels.

“That has very serious and potentially catastrophic effects for human health and human survival,” said Anthony Costello, director of University College London’s (UCL) Institute for Global Health, who co-led the report.

“We see climate change as a major health issue, and that’s often neglected in policy debates,” he told reporters at a briefing in London.

The report, commissioned and published by The Lancet medical journal, was compiled by a panel of specialists including European and Chinese climate scientists and geographers, social, environmental and energy scientists, biodiversity experts and health professionals.

The report said direct health impacts of climate change come from more frequent and intense extreme weather events, while indirect impacts come from changes in infectious disease patterns, air pollution, food insecurity and malnutrition, displacement and conflicts.

Maybe you’ve heard the awkward term the Internet of Things. It refers to networkable home gadgets: door locks, light switches, coffee makers, stuff like that.

Most of these Things haven’t really caught on with the public; at this moment, the only people who control their door locks from their phones are the kinds of people who like to speak in Javascript and count in binary.

But at least one category is catching on: Home security cameras.

You can plunk these tiny, easy-to-set-up WiFi cameras around your house and then peek in on what they’re seeing on the Web or from your phone, wherever you go in the world. You can use them to see who’s at the front door, check if the baby’s awake, find out if the nanny is overfeeding your kids, or monitor your home for motion when you’re not there.

Did you listen to Jeb Bush make his announcement yesterday? Did you hear loud cheers from a crowd that seemed excited at the prospect that there could be another Bush as President? Was I the only one confused? I don’t know one person who doesn’t threaten to leave the Country if it’s Bush vs Clinton for President again. Can’t imagine folks actually excited and cheering for Jeb.

It got me wondering, would someone like Jeb, or another candidate that’s been struggling like he has, hire a crowd? Pay people to attend their rallies to make them seem like they’re gaining in popularity? We have seen Hillary Clinton stage appearances, knowing ahead of time the people she’d interact with. Would a staged rally be out of the question for a struggling GOP candidate? According to “Crowds On Demand”, not at all.

Crowds on Demand is an American publicity firm. It claims to be the only “rent a crowd” service, providing its clients with the ability to hire actors to pose as fans. I decided to contact them, pretending to be an employee of a GOP candidate running for office. Their Founder/CEO, Adam Swart, responded. Here is our exchange…

According to a 2013 Pew Research study, 37 percent of households had an adult who owned a gun — 24 percent said they owned a gun, and 13 percent said someone else in their household did.

There are about 319 million people in the United States, so that means there are about 118 milion gun owners in this nation. Mother Jones reports there have been 69 mass shootings in the last 30 years. The Washington Post says, a Congressional Research Service report published in 2013 counted 78 incidents over roughly the same period, in which 547 were killed.

That means, out of 118 million gun owners, 78 or .00007 percent of the gun owning population are potential mass murderers (using a 30-year total).

Since Mother Jones published its analysis, five people were killed in a shooting spree in Las Vegas that authorities said was driven by anti-government views. In February, a man named Joseph Jesse Aldridge killed seven people in Texas County, Mo., including several of his relatives, before taking his own life. His motivations remain unclear. So that makes 560 people killed.

Now we can add Dylann Roof to the list. It is awful and tragic. He appears to be a sick human being who should never have been given a gun.

Of course, now the gun control activists are out in force. Any white person who legally owns a gun must be a racist white supremacist nut bag.

It is a sad truth that there are likely more mentally ill individuals in our nation who will one day get their hands on guns, legally or illegally, and take the lives of some innocent souls.

But some perspective is needed.

Let’s take that figure for the number of people killed in the last 30 years during a mass shooting of 560 and add another nine to it. That makes 569.

Now compare that number to 10,076. According to MADD, that’s the number of people killed during drunk driving crashes in 2013 alone. In fact, every day in America, another 28 people die in drunk driving crashes. Every. Single. Day.

Using the liberal logic of banning guns because of tragic (and thankfully, comparatively rare) mass shootings undertaken by crazy white folks (and some not so white), should we not then ban cars?

Cars clearly cause many more fatalities in terms of numbers each day than whack nuts with a gun.

 I knew Washington owned slaves, so I brought up the fact that if the flag was banned, he too should be banned from currency, and name removed from schools, libraries, street names and cities/states being named after him; I mean if you want to talk about “tolerance” why not remove a symbol that was intolerant towards people during his time, especially one our nation idolizes? I personally think it would make sense to do this if the Confederate Flag is seen as a racsist machine driving people incessently to commit racist acts, since we are surrounded by $1 dollar bills and the name Washington WAY more often than Confederate Flags.

1. George Washington ($1 and Quarter Dollar)- at age 22 he became President and owned 18 slaves while in office. When he married his wife he inherited 200 slaves from her previous marriage. Owned slaves while President.

3. Thomas Jefferson ($2 which is discontinued and the Nickel)- at some points in his life he was the largest slave owner in Virginia, he inherited many of him and through his wife’s dowry, which brought 100 into his estate. Owned slaves while President

4. James Madison- grew up in a family that owned slaves and owned slaves his entire life, even while in office.

5. James Monroe- Owned 30-40 slaves and while in office. Did not free them in his will. Owned while in office

7. Andrew Jackson ($20) – One of his businesses included slave trading and several years before becoming President owned at least 160 slaves and refused to free them in his will. Owned slaves in office.

8. Martin Van Buren- only owned one slave whom escaped. He offered the sale of that slave for $50 to whomever found him. Did not won slaves in office.

9. William Henry Harrison- Owned slaves but not while in office. He tried to have slavery legalized in Indiana territory while governor, but followed law to keep them as indentured servents for 10 years and then could be released.

10. John Tyler- owned slaves and also stated “(God) works most inscrutably to the understandings of men; – the negro is torn from Africa, a barbarian, ignorant and idolatrous; he is restored civilized, enlightened, and a Christian.”

11. James Polk- owned at least 15 slaves several years before Presidency and is quoted as saying “A slave dreads the punishment of stripes (i.e. whipping) more than he does imprisonment, and that description of punishment has, besides, a beneficial effect upon his fellow-slaves.”

12. Zachary Taylor- Two years before becoing President he owned at least 100 slaves, he is reported as to never selling a single slave.

17. Andrew Johnson- He owned up to 8 slaves up till the beginning of the Civil War, but didn’t own them while President.

18. Ulysses S. Grant ($50)- The only evidence that USG owned slaves is a document he signed in 1859 freeing one, William Jones.

However, Grant certainly had some control over and use of slaves his father-in-law gave his wife.

They came as slaves: human cargo transported on British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. Some were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.

But are we talking about African slavery? King James VI and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbour.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.

By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.

Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.

Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (£50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than £5 Sterling). If a planter whipped, branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce.

Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

There is little question the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more, in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is also little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end its participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded this chapter of Irish misery.

But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.

But, why is it so seldom discussed? Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims not merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?

Or is their story to be the one that their English masters intended: To completely disappear as if it never happened.

propaganda piece by the fake news main laim stream media.
White people are the biggest terror threat ?
I would say the United States government is the biggest terror threat and we can prove it !!
why are the main stream media not talking about all the white people being slaughtered in South Africa ? is that not as important as black people in America ? do African lives matter ? main stream don’t seem to think so.
All lives matter PERIOD!
Below is a propaganda piece to further divide and conquer
White Americans are the biggest terror threat in the United States, according to a study by the New America Foundation. The Washington-based research organization did a review of “terror” attacks on US soil since Sept. 11, 2001 and found that most of them were carried out by radical anti-government groups or white supremacists.
Almost twice as many people have died in attacks by right-wing groups in America than have died in attacks by Muslim extremists. Of the 26 attacks since 9/11 that the group defined as terror, 19 were carried out by non-Muslims. Yet there are no white Americans languishing inside the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. And there are no drones dropping bombs on gatherings of military-age males in the country’s lawless border regions.
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6592741/2015/06/24/white-americans-are-biggest-terror-threat-united-states
Here are some headline for you to ponder as they take America apart piece by piece.

APPLE Removes Civil War Games From App Store